Miljöpåverkan av svensk nöt-och lammköttsproduktion

Rapport, 2022

The environmental impact of meat production is a highly debated topic, and it is often stated that ruminants have a high climate impact. However, ruminants also have a positive environmental impact, for example by maintaining and enhancing biodiversity.
The purpose of this study has been to calculate the environmental impact of various rearing systems for beef and lamb in the Swedish agricultural regions “Plain districts in northern Götaland”, “Forest districts in Götaland”, “Lower parts of Norrland”, and part of “Central districts in Götaland” (the island of Gotland). For beef production, dairy bulls, dairy steers, beef bulls, beef steers and beef heifers have been studied. For lambs, spring lamb, autumn lamb and winter lamb have been investigated. Environmental impact categories included in the study are climate impact, land use, nitrogen emissions and impact on biodiversity.

For each rearing system and region, a typical production has been described. Production methods vary substantially and are not normal distributed. Therefore, we have not always used average input values in the calculations, but values that describe typical professional production, as far as possible specific to the various regions. In the project, experts in the field with the support of statistics have described what they see as typical production in each area and this basis has been used for the environmental calculations.

For both animal species, the environmental impact of the parental animals has been included in the calculations. Economic allocation has been used to manage by-products, for example to distribute the environmental impact between meat and slaughterhouse waste.
Results for climate impact are reported in the table below, including and excluding soil carbon in mineral soils and emissions from organic soils. Carbon sequestration and emissions from organic soils were often not included in previous life cycle assessment studies. However, according to new guidelines for life cycle assessment, these emissions must be included. Note that numbers below is an average of the regions studied, not a national average.

Weighted averages of the studied agricultural regions
(in parentheses the min-max).
Including soil carbon sequestration and emissions from organic soils
kg CO2 -eq./kg carcass weight
Weighted averages of the studied agricultural regions
(in parentheses the min-max).
Excluding soil carbon sequestration and emissions from organic soils
kg CO2 -eq./kg carcass weight
Dairy bulls
15 (13-15)
13 (13-14)
Dairy steers
23 (23-24)
19 (19-19)
Beef bulls
24 (24-25)
20 (19-24)
Beef steers
35 (34-36)
29 (29-31)
Beef heifers
37 (35-38)
31 (30-33)
Autumn lamb
33 (29-35)
25 (22-28)
Spring lamb
31 (29-31)
24 (24-26)
Winter lamb
42 (38-44)
31 (31-34)
2

The results for beef meat show that there is a certain variation in climate impact between the different production areas, but the differences between the different rearing systems are greater. Methane from enteric fermentation, emissions from manure storage and emissions from organic soils account for the largest emissions. Of the rearing systems studied, dairy bulls have the lowest emissions of greenhouse gases and beef breeds have higher emissions. The fact that dairy animals generally have lower emissions per kg of carcass weight than beef animals is because the dairy cow's emissions are allocated to both milk and meat, while the suckler cows 's entire emissions are allocated to meat production.
The results for lamb meat show that emissions vary between rearing systems. Spring lambs, closely followed by autumn lambs, have on average the lowest emissions, while winter lambs have the highest emissions. Methane from enteric fermentation, emissions from organic soils and emissions from manure storage account for the largest emissions. All lamb production systems must also carry a large load from the ewe. Farming on Gotland with Gotland sheep breed has lower emissions per kg slaughter weight than corresponding production with white sheep in the other areas. This is because the Gotland lamb skins are assigned an economic value and thus a part of the sheep's climate impact is allocated to skins.
For assessing biodiversity, a new scoring method has been developed within the project. High values are positive for biodiversity. The most biodiverse pastures can get 10,000 points per hectare, while an asphalted or hardened area gets 0 points. Additional points are also given for organic cultivation and for varying field sizes in the various production areas.

The results show that dairy bulls have a much smaller positive contribution to biodiversity than other rearing systems, since they do not graze. In the other rearing systems, it is grazing on semi-natural grasslands that has the greatest positive effect on biodiversity, closely followed by grazing on agriculturally-improved permanent grasslands (i.e. grasslands that carry signs of management). As for the lambs, the large land use of the winter lambs leads to the highest score for biodiversity. Gotland stands out with particularly high scores with our method, which is primarily due to the low pasture yield resulting in a large land requirement per reared lamb.

The primary purpose of the study was to calculate the environmental impact from a number of common rearing systems in meat production. However, a large proportion of the beef we eat in Sweden comes from dairy cows. In order to be able to calculate the climate footprint for Swedish beef, we therefore made an approximate calculation where we weighted the results for the studied regions with a general climate footprint for dairy cows. The estimated climate impact for Swedish beef production is then approx. 22 kg CO₂-eq. per kg carcass weight of beef including soil carbon sequestration and emissions from organic soils, and approx. 19 kg CO₂-eq. per kg carcass weight excluding soil carbon sequestration and emissions from organic soils.
Regarding Swedish lamb, it is estimated that autumn lamb makes up 52% of all production, spring lamb 28% and winter lamb 20%. If we assume that a weighted average value for the three regions corresponds to a Swedish average for lamb meat, the result is 34 kg CO₂-eq. per kg carcass weight of lamb including soil carbon sequestration and emissions from organic soils and 26 kg CO₂-eq. per kg carcass weight excluding soil carbon sequestration and emissions from organic soils.